Institutions that track clients throughout the process of a client activity often rely on employees to manually input data as the client is tracked through the activity. Clients and employees, being human however, are prone to error when providing or entering data. For example, a client may misstate a home address or the employee may mis-enter that address into a record keeping system or enter it into the wrong input box in the record keeping system. Providing machine readable codes (e.g., a one- or two-dimensional barcode, radio frequency identifiers (RFID), or microchips) may help alleviate mis-provision and mis-entry, although it is not infallible, as machine reading errors can still occur and the data are still prone to non-entry, for example, when the employee forgets to ask for information. When data are improperly or not entered, sub-processes comprising a process may be left incomplete, which will increase the difficulty in completing the process or prevent conditional sub-processes from being correctly included/excluded from the process, especially when the client is no longer available to provide the data. For example, if the employee fails to input client address information, follow up communications with the client (e.g., test results, billing, future marketing) may be impossible to complete.
Institutions wish to both monitor the ability of employees to fulfill the requirements of process tracking after the fact, and to monitor the process in real-time to prevent errors from occurring or to prompt the employees to fix the errors before problems develop from those errors. The auditing (during or post-procedure) process when automated, however, is often processor intensive and transmission heavy; requiring large amounts of data to be passed back and forth between systems and multiple calls to databases to verify that the data have been properly entered.